Help Wanted: Need Banker Willing to Deal With Marijuana Business

Legal marijuana businesses might have to start posting “Help Wanted” signs for someone willing to provide financial services to them. Regulators issued new guidancefor banks to give them some framework for providing services to marijuana businesses in states that have legalized the substance. But the guidance gave banks little confidence that they can offer financial services to marijuana-related businesses.

The guidance said that banks will have to make up their own minds about providing services to marijuana businesses after performing their customer due diligence. Banks will have to file suspicious activity reports (SAR’s) for any marijuana business that they offer services to since the substance still falls under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But banks can file a new type of SAR -- called a “marijuana limited” SAR -- for a marijuana business that is operating with a license under state law and does not violate federal drug enforcement priorities outlined in the Cole Memo released by the Department of Justice.

Those federal priorities outlined in the memo aim to prevent the following activities: distribution to minors, drugged driving, revenue from marijuana going to criminal organizations, trafficking to states that haven’t legalized marijuana, legal marijuana businesses from acting as a front for illegal activities, any violence resulting from marijuana distribution, marijuana cultivation on public lands and the use of marijuana on federal property.

When filing a “marijuana limited” SAR for a legal business that doesn't violate any of these priorities and operates within state law, the bank will simply note that it is filing the SAR because the business is engaged legally in the marijuana trade.

If a bank thinks a marijuana business is violating state law or one of the Cole Memo priorities, then it must file a “marijuana priority” SAR stating why the bank thinks the business is in violation and what transactions have been involved in the violating activity.

The response of the banking industry to the new guidance has been anything but enthusiastic. “Congress must change federal law which bans the sale and distribution of marijuana. Then all federal regulators must provide clear and precise guidance. Until then, the nation’s 7,000 banks will be highly reluctant to participate in this new type of ‘commerce,’” Richard Hunt, the president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association, said in a statement reacting to the report.

Without legislation from Congress, the new regulatory policy can be changed at any moment by the Obama administration, or the next President, Jacob Sullum, a writer for Reason magazine, rightly pointed out in a recent column.

With that kind of uncertainty, there is really no incentive for banks to offer accounts and services to legal marijuana businesses.

Congressional representatives have introduced a bill to allow banks to provide services for legal marijuana businesses. But thanks to Washington gridlock, it’s unlikely that Congress will do anything about this issue (or any other for that matter), even though government has an interest in making sure legal businesses have bank accounts. As long as these marijuana businesses don’t have bank accounts, they will be doing all of their business in cash, and that will make them more difficult to tax. It’s government shooting itself in the foot. It’s in their own self-interest for banks to stay out of the line of fire.

Jonathan Camhi has been an associate editor with Bank Systems & Technology since 2012. He previously worked as a freelance journalist in New York City covering politics, health and immigration, and has a master's degree from the City University of New York's Graduate School ... View Full Bio

Yes very good point Nate. And the two states that have legalized it are very serious about keeping it legalized and getting legitimate financial services providers for their legal marijuana businesses. The two Congressional representatives who are introducing the legislation I mentioned are from Colorado and Washington. Makes sense on their part: they partially legalized it so they could tax it to begin with!